Rapid Reply From DSDBI

On 10/10/2014 8:28 AM, we received the following expansive and incisive response to our Letter to the Minister: 

 

Dear Steve

The Mines Act 1958  has been repealed on 14 October 2010.
The ventilation standards for mines in Victoria are   outlined in Part 5.3 - Mines of the Occupational Health and Safety Regulations 2007.
The relevant legislation that establishes the legal framework for the development of mineral and stone resources in Victoria is the Mineral Resources (Sustainable Development ) Act 1990.

Regards John Mitas | General Manager Operations | Earth Resources Regulation
Department of State Development, Business and Innovation
Level 9, 121 Exhibition Street, Melbourne, Victoria 3000


So we replied to John in the following way:


Dear John,
Thank you for the rapid clarification and, well, I was going to say elaboration, but it's not that really, is it John?

All of the issues raised in our letter to the Minister and in all of the previous correspondence and the entire blog, and you pick out - and misread - a single matter of fact and refuse to deal with or comment on the rest.

Look at the email's subject line: Best Practice Required, not "When was the Mining Act 1958 repealed?"

And we have been telling you we are not being listened to. Thanks for once again proving our point, John.

It's all well and good advising us of your (to be expected) superior knowledge of legislation but perhaps you should have been doing that and giving the mine some oversight, some regulation, when SRK was writing up its Costerfield Operation report and preparing the Cuffley Vent. It is Mandalay/SRK that I QUOTE re the the Mines Act 1958, John. It is their ignorance you should be dealing with.

From 16.7.3 (page 149) in that Report - AGAIN - please do read it properly, this time, John - note the quotation marks which indicate I am quoting the mine/SRK's words:

"Airflow Requirements
The Victorian Mining Act 1958 doesn't stipulate any minimum ventilation requirements, but the Occupational Health and Safety Act 2004 stipulates..."

So the mine itself - in a report effective 31 December 2013 - refers to the Mining Act 1958 and also, thanks for the confirmation of this, to the OH&S Act... 2004 not the 2007 Regulations. WHY?

They're referring to the wrong Legislation, John. Have been for a while, we would assume. Cut and paste from previous reports perhaps... much easier that way. And it's just a formality for them anyway, knowing what they do about regulatory diligence in the state of Victoria. Perhaps you should find out and announce what's actually been happening in Costerfield and stop leaving it to us to discover these 'shortcomings'.

We picked this up, John, but it has seemingly escaped the notice of you and your fellow regulators. And the Canadian Stock Exchange, too, apparently... Why? How?

And in the OH&S Regulations 2007, there is still no minimum requirement for airflow for ventilation, is there John? AND SO the company went to Western Australia to find "best practice"... that's our point right there, John. Duck and weave if you want but it's right there anyway.

We don't have airflow requirements protecting the health and well-being of mine workers in Victoria, do we John? No best practice in Victoria. That was the point of the email, not to drop a pop quiz on legislation on the Minister. 

And John, all of those provisions in the 2007 Regulations are (quite properly) designed to protect workers... hence the word "Occupational" in the title.

Where have been the protections for the citizens of Costerfield and surrounding areas from the emissions that leave the mine via the vent or vents?

Where is that in the MRSD Act? No mention of emissions there. And the OH&S Regulations 2007 says nothing about emissions either. And the EPA have the SEPP (AQM) 2007 but they don't bother employing its specific applicability to Costerfield conditions; missing in action.

The impacts of the regulators' collective and cumulative actions and inactions have served to produce a Health Issue for the people of Costerfield and the surrounding areas, John.

We are now relying on the Department of Health and the Minister to sort this out.
We don't trust the mining regulators with it anymore. Look what we get when you're in charge.

You're obviously going to say that the photo of the funnel-in-a-flagon is the preserve of the EPA. [Edit: He's not actually, because acceptance of the mine's dust monitoring methodology and results is the preserve of the very department John heads - Earth Resources Regulation; the EPA you have when you don't (want to) have an EPA.] But who is responsible for the issues raised by the other picture? The mine you have supposedly been overseeing has been doing that since at least 13 February, 2006.

That's airborne dust, and that's a mining hazard according to definition 1 (m) of Section 5.3.2 of the OH&S 2007 Regulations, isn't it? Just because it's above ground doesn't mean you can forget about a mining hazard, does it, John? What about the workers on the surface? What about us, John?

Please at least attempt to address our concerns. Please make some sort of effort in that direction, John, rather than pettily correcting us on matters of legislation that we are only being forced to apprise ourselves of in order to protect ourselves from the regulators' and the regulations' repeated displays of inadequacy.

We cannot see how we could possibly regard your last brief email to be a response from the Minister. We would like to hear what he has to say on these matters.

And we would like a full EES process to be instigated to help address these matters in a formal and thorough manner. It is to be hoped that you will be advising the Minister to begin this process as soon as possible.

This exchange will be on the blog shortly. It's turning into a very interesting read.

Regards